FOX News in New York asks Google: Why are you blocking the MassResistance blog?

massresistance.org ^ | 7/29/2009 | n/a

[massmike]

Amy Contrada:Homosexual newspaper publishes attack on MassResistance activist and 17-year-old daughter. Disgusting attempt to traumatize family.

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/07c/attack_on_activist.html

[Dallas59]

[TurtleUp]

Interestingly, they are mostly pictures of women who have amputated their breasts to "become" men, and who are marching shirtless as a statement of their "masculinity". (Ironically, according to Google's own absurd transgender-support policies these women would be considered "men" anyway since that's their "gender identity!"

Being "supportive" and "loving" is good. Isn't it? If I had a friend who felt that one of his/her/its eyes was not part of his true identity, I would support that friend's effort to remove the offending organ. Not only that, but after the surgery, I would refer to my friend as a Cyclops if that was my friend's desire. After all, cosmetic changes are enough to alter more fundamental aspects of identity.

The sad thing is that many liberals would not recognize the absurdity of my comment. Perhaps I should have gone with an earthworm identity and steered the picture toward "Boxing Helena"?

[marvlus]

later review.

[Sig Sauer P220]

Use Bing.com for your search engine.

[Incorrigible]

Amen!

BING.com

.

[McGruff]

for the last several weeks Google has been blocking the MassResistance blog with a warning screen alleging “objectionable content”,

I agree. I don't want my kid to be able to see these pictures you describe.

[Venturer]

I went over and barged throught the warning. I must say a warning is almost necessary, there are some UGLY people pictured on that site.

Mostly people who are homosexual because they couldnt attract the opposite sex even if they tried.

[TWohlford]

“I must say a warning is almost necessary, there are some UGLY people pictured on that site.”

I did see a lot of people whose appearance set off warning signs in my head that they’ve got some issues....

[Richard Kimball]

Google blocks the site for political reasons, not obscenity. As Google is a private company, there is no 1st amendment violation. It does damage Google’s reputation as a search engine when it blocks sites for reasons other than because they are illegal or a known source of viruses.
If safe search is turned off, as it is on my computer, sites shouldn’t be filtered because of content.

[BuckeyeTexan]

They’re just following Jesus’ advice to cut it off if it offend them. I’m sure that’s what he meant. /sarc

[massmike]

...But isn’t it funny that the very things that the gays DON’T want YOU to see are the same things that they fight to present to CHILDREN in school as “normal,natural,and healthy”?(..in spite of parental objections).

[Nathan Zachary]

"did see a lot of people whose appearance set off warning signs in my head that they’ve got some issues....

Oh come now, they are "normal". They were born that way so they MUST be normal.

Just like three legged frogs with 4 eyes are normal.

[Prodigal Son]

Google is not a government institution. What is it exactly you want here? To make them list your site? If they don’t want to list your site... It’s their business isn’t it (literally)?

Google is... Huge. I doubt there’s too much you can do in any sort of practical sense that would force them to list your site. If you had some massive planet destroying weapon you might be able to force them to, but failing that...

[Nathan Zachary]

I would think that if google doesn’t list your site, advertise the search engines that do, and don’t sensor sites because of their political or other beliefs.

Then people will gradually learn and use the search engine that gives them a better, unbiased result for their searches.

[oh8eleven]

mostly pictures of women who have amputated their breasts to "become" men
Nope, nothing wrong with these people.

[dmz]

The article and the headline are mismatched. Blocking a site means (at least so I thought) that you cannot view its content at all. The mass resistance page had a warning that you have to click through.

How is that blocking?

Did I miss something in the article?

[TomOnTheRun]

This seems like a non-scandal to me. The site isn't truly blocked since you can still actually access it. Putting it behind a warning that you have to click through is not the same thing as censorship since Google isn't a state actor and (even more importantly) you CAN still access the information. I would also suggest that people might well be shocked by some of the pictures shared on there there so it doesn't seem entirely inappropriate to tell them that in advance.

There was a part of this that actively annoyed me -- "Why weren't any of the people arrested for obscenity, one might ask, if Google finds it so offensive?" Well... how about because Google isn't an arm of the state. Besides - shouldn't private individuals and private companies aspire to have higher standards than the state? Why slam them when they try?

[Above My Pay Grade]

I agree 100%, I wouldn't want my kids seeing that site either. While I agree with Mass Resistance in its campaign to keep sodomy from being promoted to public school children, the images of the perverts displayed on that site, while perhaps relevant to the message, are objectionable to me.

Also, the claim that the blog is being “blocked” is not true. A warning comes up about potentially objectionable material, but you can still access the site, by clicking yes. There is a huge difference between warning users and letting them decide for themselves, and actually blocking access.